[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Article on small theropod teeth in new issue of JP
From: Ben Creisler email@example.com
In case this one hasn't been mentioned yet, the new issue
of the Journal of Paleontology has an article on theropod
teeth from Alberta:
SANKEY, JULIA T., DONALD B. BRINKMAN, MERRILEE
GUENTHER, and PHILIP J. CURRIE, 2002. SMALL THEROPOD AND
BIRD TEETH FROM THE LATE CRETACEOUS (LATE CAMPANIAN)
JUDITH RIVER GROUP, ALBERTA. Journal of Paleontology: Vol.
76, No. 4, pp. 751-763.
AB: A collection of over 1,700 small theropod teeth from
the Judith River Group (Campanian; 79.5?74 Ma) allows our
understanding of the diversity and variation of small
theropods in this assemblage to be refined. In addition to
the previously recognized taxa, a series of
morphologically distinct groups are recognized that may
represent distinct taxa in some cases. Teeth with the
Paronychodon-like features of a flat surface with
longitudinal ridges on one side are resolved into a few
discrete morphotypes. Two of these are included in
Paronychodon lacustris and two additional morphotypes are
hypothesized to represent distinct taxa, here referred to
as ?Dromaeosaurus morphotype A and Genus and species
indet. A. The teeth of Paronychodon lacustris and ?
Dromaeosaurus morphotype A share a distinctive wear
pattern that suggests tooth functioning involved contact
between the flat surfaces of opposing teeth. Two species
of Richardoestesia , R. gilmorei and R. isosceles , are
present in the assemblage. Additionally, bird teeth are
identified in the assemblage and are described in this
Bivariate plots were used to document the variation in
the theropod teeth, especially in the features that
distinguish between Richardoestesia gilmorei , R.
isosceles, Saurornitholestes, and Dromaeosaurus.
Considerable overlap is present in all plots, so although
the teeth are morphologically distinct, they are not
easily distinguished by quantitative means.